an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman marty.lederman at comcast.net
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Apparently you have not yet reconciled yourself to the plain fact that abusive and degrading treatment, such as that described in these e-mails, is not only "humane," but is actually authorized by the Army Field Manual -- which in turn incorporates the standards prescribed for prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. It therefore follows that wrapping Muslim detainees in an Israeli flag and forcing them to watch gay pornography under strobe lights is humane treatment, consistent with the Geneva Conventions. Don't just take my word for it -- that's the conclusion of the Pentagon's own Schmidt Report (at least, the Executive Summary, which is all we've been permitted to see). This explains why the Pentagon spokesperson can shamelessly respond that these recent revelations are "old information" -- been there, done that.
I already commented on the previous post that I do not believe that soldiers would act that way -- that the abusers were civilians (either government or contractor). In the Abu Ghraib scandal, as well, the perpetrators were not front-line soldiers but rear echelon cannot-get-a-job-in-the-real-world 38-year old MPs and affirmative action 98-pound would- be-on-welfare-otherwise white trash girls. I do not know that this degradation of our military forces can be laid entirely at the feet of the Shrub. Sure, his current AG wrote torture memos which would get lawyers in some jurisdictions disbarred. But it seems to me that the military has been degraded too much by the social experimenters who have limited its ability to choose the best person for the job.
I'm a poor boy too. All I wanted to say was that real soldiers are not the ones who are doing this s__t. It's the borderline Section-8's and 4-F's who were forced on the services by the affirmative action/political correctness crowd.
well, if getting these people to oppose torture requires catering to reactionary preconceptions about "white trash," I suppose that's a decent trade-off. NK isn't all that accurate, though, if you look at who was doing this stuff in Gitmo and Bagram.
I think what's going on here is that the administration, and by extension the military, simply don't regard embarassing people to be "torture". A word they reserve for treatment which actually causes pain and/or physical damage to the body.
And I have to admit I have a hard time getting any outrage up about wrapping people in Israeli flags, even if I think their definition of torture is a *tad* narrow.